Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

This Debate is Openly Being Votebombed

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
People are voting on this debate without reading it and without justifying their votes with anything other than "Pro was more convincing". I just thought I would post it here because it's frustrating that my vote was countered and labeled as a votebomb by someone who was voting on his personal feelings rather than what the debaters actually said. There are only 12 hours left, so please counter ridiculous votes.

http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:13:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
LOL at some of those source votes . . . One side lied about what his sources said and when his opponent caught him, he didn't even bother to contest it, but somehow his sources are better? People are not reading debates.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:09:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is insulting both to the debaters who spent a good deal of time on their cases and to the voters who actually weighed points and voted fairly (as opposed to inserting their personal opinions [dylancat]).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:25:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 7:21:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
Can Debates be Secretly Votebombed?

I think it was f-3838 who categorized different types. Some votebombs have thinly veiled (though ultimately empty) justification along the lines of casual reference to x argument winning or something without explanation of why or how x contributed to the sway of the debate. It's not as obvious as "herp pro won" but its nevertheless not exactly a proper vote. Most votes on the site are probably of this type.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:29:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Out of 12 votes on the debate I'd say 5 were actually legit.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:07:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
My favorites are the guy who voted on conduct because he said my arguments were propoganda (even though i do switch side and would just have readily.argued pro), the way dylancatlow flipped his ballot from 7 points to 6 back and forth.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:30:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol...

The voting here simply does not matter:

1) It is not statistically significant in any manner, rendering any statistics derived from them also meaningless. Winning or losing a debate here does not prove anything, least of all about the substance of the debate proper.

2) Anyone who has completed 3 debates here can vote. The three debates could be eye-openers about Israeli-Palestinian relations, or something like this:
http://www.debate.org...

3) The only incentive there is to be honest with one's vote is the corresponding exchange of information upon voting, i.e. discussion, which IMHO is the real allure of this website's concept. However, scored voting disincentivizes this. People feel they are invested in their vote, and that to change their vote would somehow violate principles of integrity, when in reality it is simply an extension of the debate. This would cause some people to be less candid about their view than otherwise, because they don't see their vote as being open to discussion.

The only justifiable reason as to why votes would not be subject to discussion is only if the vote itself was deemed a proper authority. As of now, it simply is not.

---

For all of these reasons, I think any real scoring methodology would have to place much stricter controls on who votes. Maybe judges should be elected, with a requisite minimal turnout from the voting populace. No question they should have some solid background in the matter being debated, otherwise an uninformed vote would appropriately convey little information to the debaters and the audience.

This would not be the case if the debates were being judged on a priori logic, but that rarely if ever happens here. Most of the people here are high school students who have yet to take a class on formal logic. Most of the people who are not high school students have no formal logic experience. People like myself who do have formal logic experience have rarely if ever debated in a manner like this.

IMHO because of the difficulty of finding qualified judges, I would instead opt for a "no scoring" option for debates. This would open the floor for further discussion beyond the formal settings of the debate, if that was the intent of the debaters.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:35:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
*Cough* http://www.debate.org... *cough.*

Yeah, there's a dedicated thread for this already.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:21:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:30:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
lol...

The voting here simply does not matter:

1) It is not statistically significant in any manner, rendering any statistics derived from them also meaningless. Winning or losing a debate here does not prove anything, least of all about the substance of the debate proper.

2) Anyone who has completed 3 debates here can vote. The three debates could be eye-openers about Israeli-Palestinian relations, or something like this:
http://www.debate.org...

3) The only incentive there is to be honest with one's vote is the corresponding exchange of information upon voting, i.e. discussion, which IMHO is the real allure of this website's concept. However, scored voting disincentivizes this. People feel they are invested in their vote, and that to change their vote would somehow violate principles of integrity, when in reality it is simply an extension of the debate. This would cause some people to be less candid about their view than otherwise, because they don't see their vote as being open to discussion.

The only justifiable reason as to why votes would not be subject to discussion is only if the vote itself was deemed a proper authority. As of now, it simply is not.

---

: For all of these reasons, I think any real scoring methodology would have to place much stricter controls on who votes. Maybe judges should be elected, with a requisite minimal turnout from the voting populace. No question they should have some solid background in the matter being debated, otherwise an uninformed vote would appropriately convey little information to the debaters and the audience.

This would not be the case if the debates were being judged on a priori logic, but that rarely if ever happens here. Most of the people here are high school students who have yet to take a class on formal logic. Most of the people who are not high school students have no formal logic experience. People like myself who do have formal logic experience have rarely if ever debated in a manner like this.

IMHO because of the difficulty of finding qualified judges, I would instead opt for a "no scoring" option for debates. This would open the floor for further discussion beyond the formal settings of the debate, if that was the intent of the debaters.

I actually would favor that. And while that is difficult to pull off, it can be done without the site code supporting it if you have a panel of judges you and your opponent agreed on beforehand, then several backups who counter anyone else who votes.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 4:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:30:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
lol...

The voting here simply does not matter:

1) It is not statistically significant in any manner, rendering any statistics derived from them also meaningless. Winning or losing a debate here does not prove anything, least of all about the substance of the debate proper.

I agree. Not to mention, the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because most or all voters agree, does not make their vote "right". Even if the vote is legitimate, the losing side may still have deserved the win. Just because you have the stronger argument, does not mean you are more convincing. For example; if the concepts used went over the voter's heads, or if your opponent was deceptive, legitimate voters could be swayed to vote for the weaker argument.

2) Anyone who has completed 3 debates here can vote. The three debates could be eye-openers about Israeli-Palestinian relations, or something like this:
http://www.debate.org...

3) The only incentive there is to be honest with one's vote is the corresponding exchange of information upon voting, i.e. discussion, which IMHO is the real allure of this website's concept. However, scored voting disincentivizes this. People feel they are invested in their vote, and that to change their vote would somehow violate principles of integrity, when in reality it is simply an extension of the debate. This would cause some people to be less candid about their view than otherwise, because they don't see their vote as being open to discussion.

The only justifiable reason as to why votes would not be subject to discussion is only if the vote itself was deemed a proper authority. As of now, it simply is not.

I agree. If you cannot clarify your RFD, than it is obviously a bogus RFD. Voters have an obligation to explain why they voted, and if they can't, they should not be voting.
---

For all of these reasons, I think any real scoring methodology would have to place much stricter controls on who votes. Maybe judges should be elected, with a requisite minimal turnout from the voting populace. No question they should have some solid background in the matter being debated, otherwise an uninformed vote would appropriately convey little information to the debaters and the audience.

This would not be the case if the debates were being judged on a priori logic, but that rarely if ever happens here. Most of the people here are high school students who have yet to take a class on formal logic. Most of the people who are not high school students have no formal logic experience. People like myself who do have formal logic experience have rarely if ever debated in a manner like this.

IMHO because of the difficulty of finding qualified judges, I would instead opt for a "no scoring" option for debates. This would open the floor for further discussion beyond the formal settings of the debate, if that was the intent of the debaters.

I find the idea of a "no scoring" option interesting. Maybe instead of scoring, there could be a discussion opened up after the debate. Where people could talk about the arguments made in debate, and their merits.

It is hard finding qualified voters, and it would be nearly impossible to get a team of full time voters. Unless they are aid, like through advertisements or something (preferably non-intrusive ads).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:25:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 4:41:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:30:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
lol...

The voting here simply does not matter:

1) It is not statistically significant in any manner, rendering any statistics derived from them also meaningless. Winning or losing a debate here does not prove anything, least of all about the substance of the debate proper.

I agree. Not to mention, the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because most or all voters agree, does not make their vote "right". Even if the vote is legitimate, the losing side may still have deserved the win. Just because you have the stronger argument, does not mean you are more convincing. For example; if the concepts used went over the voter's heads, or if your opponent was deceptive, legitimate voters could be swayed to vote for the weaker argument.

I don't know why people think getting more votes means they were "right".

In my debate about the legitimacy of the political compass, only 1 person voted. There is still 163 days left in the voting period. After receiving one vote my opponent said "DanT, do you still cling to your erroneous conviction?"...

WTF???
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 7:29:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:35:52 AM, Ragnar wrote:
*Cough* http://www.debate.org... *cough.*

Yeah, there's a dedicated thread for this already.

So? We made a new one.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:04:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 7:29:19 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:35:52 AM, Ragnar wrote:
*Cough* http://www.debate.org... *cough.*

Yeah, there's a dedicated thread for this already.

So? We made a new one.

One thats not required, and is pointless, and these kind of threads are the reason we have that thread in the first place.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:03:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason you gave for voting against me was that I admitted that forced sacrifice was sometimes morally justified. That, of course, says nothing about whether it is morally justified in any particular case. I said that a draft could be justified if the fate of the country were at stake. You contend that implies that I granted that it is morally justified to set up a Federal bureaucracy with the power to ban doorknobs and require elevators in swimming pools. The extrapolation is stupid beyond belief. Is that how socialists think or were you just vote bombing?

I see that now I am supposed to chase arguments beyond the comments on the debate to the forums. I don't have a problem with discussion in comments --it's a debate site, after all-- but it is completely unreasonable for me to have to search for forum threads where horsepucky attacks are launched.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:11:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 6:13:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL at some of those source votes . . . One side lied about what his sources said and when his opponent caught him, he didn't even bother to contest it, but somehow his sources are better? People are not reading debates.

Provide the proof that I lied about sources. A law in California that I cited was repealed, not to my knowledge. However, my opponent cited the fact that 100,000 lawsuits were filed as proof, with 97.% ruled for the defendant as proof the law working. That's proof of the claim that the law causes excessive litigation and works by lawsuit intimidation.

Claiming I lied is an insult, which is a violation of site rules. I did not lie.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:11:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:03:07 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason you gave for voting against me was that I admitted that forced sacrifice was sometimes morally justified. That, of course, says nothing about whether it is morally justified in any particular case. I said that a draft could be justified if the fate of the country were at stake. You contend that implies that I granted that it is morally justified to set up a Federal bureaucracy with the power to ban doorknobs and require elevators in swimming pools. The extrapolation is stupid beyond belief. Is that how socialists think or were you just vote bombing?

I see that now I am supposed to chase arguments beyond the comments on the debate to the forums. I don't have a problem with discussion in comments --it's a debate site, after all-- but it is completely unreasonable for me to have to search for forum threads where horsepucky attacks are launched.

I hereby declare this post ^ valid.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:11:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:13:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL at some of those source votes . . . One side lied about what his sources said and when his opponent caught him, he didn't even bother to contest it, but somehow his sources are better? People are not reading debates.

Provide the proof that I lied about sources. A law in California that I cited was repealed, not to my knowledge. However, my opponent cited the fact that 100,000 lawsuits were filed as proof, with 97.% ruled for the defendant as proof the law working. That's proof of the claim that the law causes excessive litigation and works by lawsuit intimidation.

Claiming I lied is an insult, which is a violation of site rules. I did not lie.

I have a much stronger opinion on Royal regarding this kind of behavior.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:45:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:03:07 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason you gave for voting against me was that I admitted that forced sacrifice was sometimes morally justified. That, of course, says nothing about whether it is morally justified in any particular case. I said that a draft could be justified if the fate of the country were at stake. You contend that implies that I granted that it is morally justified to set up a Federal bureaucracy with the power to ban doorknobs and require elevators in swimming pools. The extrapolation is stupid beyond belief. Is that how socialists think or were you just vote bombing?

I see that now I am supposed to chase arguments beyond the comments on the debate to the forums. I don't have a problem with discussion in comments --it's a debate site, after all-- but it is completely unreasonable for me to have to search for forum threads where horsepucky attacks are launched.

No.